Virginia declares “emperor has no clothes”: NDAA nullified

Virginia’s Senate voted today (39-1) to nullify NDAA 2012 provisions to seize American citizens at the dictate of the federal executive branch. They joined the House’s 96-4 vote.

Do an Internet news search for this story (like this); you won’t find any corporate media coverage. This is what Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld meant with Information Operations Road Map (specifically with endnote 76 in an article on the also non-covered Martin Luther King civil trial that found the US government guilty of assassinating Dr. King), and what CIA-disclosed Operation Mockingbird was meant to achieve: no corporate media opposition.

“The US Constitution refutes the so-called “National Defense Authorization Act” provisions for US military to seize people in America (here, here, here). The 5th and 6th Amendments of the US Constitution promise that if the government is to seize you, they damn sure have to demonstrate you’ve committed a crime (my comments). Note that these promises apply to all persons, not just citizens:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury (that means a jury of one’s peers, not the dictatorship of “the leader” – “fuehrer” in German)… nor shall any person… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;…

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

The Oath to the US Constitution is first and primary for the US military to defend America and our freedoms. By definition, America’s freedoms are in our Constitution. The respect Americans and the world have for US military is in proportion to upholding the freedoms in the US Constitution.

US military are trained to refuse unlawful orders. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92 makes US military duty clear to obey lawful orders. The primary source for lawful orders is the US Constitution. A nation’s constitution are its central and defining laws.

Any order that interferes with constitutional law is by definition an unlawful order that must be refused. Using the US military to seize Americans is such an obvious breach of the US Constitution that it evokes the legal term, ab initio: void and without legal effect from the beginning.”

HB 1160 passed by Virginia’s legislative branch by a combined vote of 135-5:

Unlawful detention of United States citizens. Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a United States citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation.

“While the bill doesn’t directly block federal agents from carrying out their new NDAA powers, this is part and parcel of a larger NDAA nullification campaign around the country. Currently 7 local governments have passed resolutions ranging from a denouncement of the federal act in three Colorado counties to requiring noncompliance with it in places like Fairfax, CA and Northampton, MA. And, 7 states are currently considering legislation like Virginia’s – all based off the model legislation provided by the Tenth Amendment Center, the Liberty Preservation Act.

THREE STEPS, MAYBE JUST TWO?

Here at the Tenth Amendment Center, we define nullification as “any act or set of acts which has as its end result a particular law being rendered null, void, or unenforceable in a specific area.” With that definition in mind, we see nullification of the new “kidnapping powers” of the NDAA as a multi-step process.

1. Education – awareness. This is where local and state resolutions come into play. When something is passed, even non-binding, it gets press coverage about the idea that the local and state people have a role to play in this.

2. Non-compliance – as just passed by the Virginia House and Senate, and being considered in various other states and local communities. The message? Your unconstitutional federal act is not welcome here!

Gandhi, Rosa Parks and others didn’t take it beyond there. We recognize that in almost every situation, the federal government relies on states being silent or even fully complicit. Information sharing, logistics, and even national guard troops carrying out orders are activities that could be asked of state and local governments. Could the feds still kidnap at that point if the state refuses compliance? Sure, “legally” nothing has changed. But if 10-15 states and a hundred or so counties and cities are making clear they will not comply and that they consider the act unconstitutional, it’s going to be much tougher for them, if not politically impossible, than if everybody just complied and waited for the courts or another election to “save” them.

3. Resistance and physical interposition – Some, of course, believe that the feds can never be stopped without a physical resistance. But this may not be required if enough states and localities take noncompliance seriously in #2 above. But, we also see the value in running the full spectrum of options from the simplest to the strongest in various parts of the country. In Washington State, the bill there is full non-compliance. Matt Shea and Jason Overstreet, the primary sponsors, feel they can get that moving forward, and hope to follow up with criminal penalties in a future bill. Then, potentially another to require arrest of fed agents for kidnapping could be considered. In Missouri, they’re tracking along the same lines.

In Tennessee, though, the bill being considered right now refers to indefinite detention as a “kidnapping” charge and requires the local sheriffs to stop them. (info here)”

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, and educational issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: